The Second Circuit today came out with rulings in two big commercial cases.
The first involved a "collateralized debt obligation", the second a cartel that the plaintiffs alleged fixed prices for "publication paper". Plaintiffs won both times.
The CDO case stemmed from a $60 million purchase in December 2006 by a German bank, Bayerische
Say you bought a share of Enron stock before it belly-flopped into chapter 11. You paid too much for it, right? $90 or so. And when the belly-flopping took place, the market price for your share in the Greatest Company Ever fell to, oh, about $1. You lost around $89 bucks, right?
Maybe. In your
Did high-flyer Winstar co-opt its auditing firm?
Defendants facing securities fraud claims have won more than their share of cases in the last half a decade or so. Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have helped.
In 2011, for instance, the Court ruled that you must have "ultimate authority" to make a false statement
K-Dur treats low potassium. We think.
Since 2003, the Federal Trade Commission has fought a losing battle to halt bargains in which a brand-name drug-maker pays a generic competitor to put off entering the market. Pacts like that, the agency urged, result in "reverse payments", which compensate a patent infringer not to do stuff that might infringe the patent. Such arrangements violate antitrust law
Royal Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland. Note the lion rampant.
The Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit enjoys hurling verbal bolts of lightning. At least you would think so if you read what His Honor, Frank Easterbrook, wrote this week in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley, No. 10-3285 (7th Cir. June 13, 2012).
An
The Supreme Court of the Lone Star State doesn't often make rulings that favor class action treatment of claims. But last week it did.
The case arose in Williamson County — home of a District Attorney who fought DNA testing for an innocent man who spent 25 years in prison for killing his wife. The
The Fifth Circuit seldom affirms class certification orders. Can it stand class actions?
The court's ruling last week in Reed v. Florida Metro. Univ., No. 11-50509 (5th Cir. May 18, 2012), suggests not. The case dealt with the near-worthless degrees that Everest College sold — awarded — online and from store-front "campuses", where (per
U.S. Senior District Judge John Padova today granted in part and denied in part the motion of Comcast for summary judgment on claims that it violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by entering into market-allocation agreements with competitors and monopolizing the market for cable services in the Philadelphia area.
Judge Padova's 72-page
You've likely heard by now that the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple and a bunch of e-book publishers for fixing prices on, well, e-books.
You can see the complaint here.
The key part comes in paragraph 7, which explains Apple's "agency" plan for thwarting Amazon's effort to cut all
Blawgletter hasn't hidden our liking for the cut of the Second Circuit's jib. We admire lots of things about the court. This week, three panels confirmed our High Opinion.
Let's see . . . one involved whether an antitrust complaint met the Twombly/Iqbal standard for pleading a "plausible" conspiracy, the second dealt with